Friday, May 29, 2020
Follow us on
हरियाणा के प्रधान महालेखाकार (लेखा व हकदारी) कार्यालय ने राज्य सरकार के पेंशनभोगियों के पेंशन संशोधन से जुड़े मामलों और शिकायतों के निपटान के लिए ऑनलाइन शिकायत निवारण प्रणाली शुरू की कोविड पीडि़तों की निष्काम सेवा कर रहे डॉक्टरों और अर्ध-चिकित्सीय स्टाफ को अपने पर्यटन परिसरों में ठहरने एवं भोजन आदि की नि:शुल्क सुविधा उपलब्ध करवाई जा रही हैहरियाणा सरकार का बड़ा फैसला, कैंसर सभी मरीजों को मिलेगी हरियाणा में पेंशन:ओपी यादव,समाज कल्याणकेशनी आनन्द अरोड़ा ने कृषि विभाग और जिला प्रशासन के अधिकारियों को राज्य में टिड्डी दल के हमले से निपटने के लिए पूर्व में ही सभी प्रकार की सावधानियां बरतने और व्यवस्था करने के निर्देश दिएहरियाणा के मुख्यमंत्री मनोहर लाल ने आज पंचकूला में पोर्टेबल इलैक्टोंनिक वेईंग मशीन के डैमो का अवलोकन कियाअमेरिका से डिपोर्ट किए 76 लोगों का मामला,गृह मंत्री अनिल विज ने दी जानकारीचंडीगढ़:कोरोना से लड़ाई करने के लिए केंद्र राज्य सरकार तैयार:दुष्यंत चौटाला हरियाणा के उप-मुख्यमंत्रीछत्तीसगढ़ के पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री अजीत जोगी का निधन
Niyalya se

Tribunal slams ED for ‘imaginary’ loss in ambulance scam

September 20, 2019 04:58 AM


Tribunal slams ED for ‘imaginary’ loss in ambulance scam
Neeraj Chauhan

New Delhi : A Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) tribunal in Delhi has criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for coming up with an “imaginary” and “concocted” figure of ~23.92 crore as the loss in a scheme involving an ambulance service in Rajasthan in which state chief minister Ashok Gehlot, deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot, and former Union minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram, a member of Parliament, were named as accused in 2015.

The high-profile case was originally registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in August 2015 on a reference from then Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje. Naming Gehlot, Pilot, Karti Chidambaram, former state health minister AA Khan alias Duru Miya and a private company, Ziqitza Healthcare Ltd (ZHL) , and its directors, including Ravi Krishna (son of former Union minister Vyalar Ravi), as accused in the first information report (FIR), CBI alleged that the state was cheated in the operation of the 108 ambulance service between 2010 and 2013.

Interestingly, the federal investigation agency did not name Gehlot, Pilot and Karti Chidambaram in its charge sheet filed in June 2018 and mentioned that there was a “loss to government” of ~62 lakh.

ED, which launched a simultaneous probe, claimed in its charge sheet, filed on July 2018 that the scheme also involved money laundering of ~23.92 crore and attached properties worth ~11.88 crore, including fixed deposits and bank guarantees of ZHL in State Bank of Patiala and Dhanalaxmi Bank. The chairman of PMLA appellate tribunal, justice Manmohan Singh, hearing pleas of State Bank of India and Dhanlaxmi Bank as well as ZHL, seeking that the FDs and bank guarantees be released so that banks could recover dues from the company, said in his judgment on September 12: “The attachment (by ED) is not sustainable, (is) without application of mind and very harsh. There is no material on record that the banks have any nexus and link with other appellants (referring to ZHL and its directors)”.

It also added that ZHL is liable to pay only ~62 lakh while “rest of the attachment stands released”.

“In the present case, ED has failed to establish any foundational fact… CBI has stated that the loss to government is only ~62,74,858 (~62.7 lakh) which is nowhere close to the imaginary and concocted figure of ~23,92,34,724 (~23.9 crore) as alleged by ED. Therefore whole case of ED falls to the ground as the whole case proceeded on the figure of ~23.92 crore approximately, which in reality as on today is nothing but an imaginary figure, without any basis.”

Asserting that ED failed to even establish that there was any money laundering, Singh said: “The ED has failed to give any findings as to whether the property in question is ‘ascribable’ to money laundering or not. The ED appellate authority (which confirms an attachment) is required to show that was substantially probable cause to form opinion that the property under attachment is ‘proceeds of crime’. The ED has failed to establish that the decision is well thought, well reasoned and has been issued on the basis of the material gathered during the course of investigation carried out under the provisions of PMLA.

Have something to say? Post your comment